Kingdom Come: Deliverance appears to have been downgraded from its stunning PC beta version

DSOGaming writes: "Prior to its release, Kingdom Come: Deliverance amazed a lot of gamers with its visuals. However, it appears that the final version has been noticeably downgraded compared to its beta build that was available to all Kickstarter backers."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
KionicWarlord222299d ago

Jesus talk about a downgrade.

The entire vegetation has been neutered

theXtReMe1299d ago (Edited 299d ago )

I think the developer got in way over their head with this game. Especially using the CryEngine. Not sure why they just didn’t go with UE4. They would’ve had a much easier time getting visuals where they wanted them and locking the framerate. Definitely would’ve had a much easier time supporting the Pro and X. It took Homefront: Revolution 8 patches to finally get it right in CryEngine. Now it looks good and runs well on the Pro and X. Im hoping it doesn’t take these guys that many patches to do the same for their game. Though I’ll definitely take the wait over the games current state.

zivtheawesome299d ago

WOW this is some freaking downgrade. i wondered about getting this just because of the beta images but now... nope.

Usperg299d ago

No you didn't......

I guarantee, you probably wouldn't have even noticed till this was brought up.

Game is awesome and still looks great and a simple mod can easily fix this but you will never know cos you're a wee baby.

Sgt_Slaughter299d ago

That's the thing, why should someone have to fix this with a mod? This shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Takwin299d ago

The game got middling reviews, and even the ones that liked it talked about its dated UI, quests, facial animations, and the still many bugs. Ziv's opinion is that on top of all of that, this downgrade makes them even less likely to buy it.

Me personally, it looks like a $10 game I would get a year from now if it is sufficiently patched and supported. Looks like a Humble Monthly game in late 2018 or early 2019.

Exoil299d ago

I'm actually surprised over how good this game is. I've been putting in 30 hours so far into the game on PS4 Pro and found one bug that won't let me complete a quest.

After booting it up from stand by mode I had some problems with assets not loading in properly in towns, with NPCs standing around in their underwear, no heads and in the T-shape animation, insides of buildings not loading etc. but a simple restart fixed that issue.

I personally think the game looks great with realistic surroundings and the best forests I've seen in any games.

SenorFartCushion299d ago

But how does it play? Graphics are nice, but anything past ps3-evel is largely just because you can.

Only children are obsessed with their shiny shiny graphics.

Actually, no. Children don't care either. In fact, children actually HAVE fun playing by the sounds of it.

zaherdab298d ago

So ur comment makes no sense ? Children dont carw abojt graphics and adults dont care about graphics ... graphics dont care about graphics

frostypants299d ago

I mean, it's still the prettiest RPG out there...

Fishy Fingers299d ago

Seems odd considering it was playable. If it was such a system hog they should of just created an extra pre-set for those with the hardware.

Presume a modder will be happy to ‘fix’ it if needs be.

Servbot41299d ago

My guess is they don't want to advertise those graphics when only the 1% of buyers will even be able to hit those settings without massive framedrops. This is one thing PC enthusiasts seem to forget when they constantly complain about "downgrading." The average user doesn't spend a couple thousand on a PC, especially not with the current GPU prices being what they are; developers and publishers have to sell to both crowds, not just the enthusiasts.

instantstupor299d ago (Edited 299d ago )

Except there are plenty of times where they are happy to show a level of graphics in trailers and images that, in the end, isn't representative of a game anyone gets to play. We see it time and again with downgrades from E3 trailers or vertical slice gameplay or bullshots...the list goes on.

So I would think that they would prefer to say "yea, this is a level of visual fidelity our game can achieve, albeit on very high end rigs - but it is a version of the game that does actually exist." I mean, the whole point of having multiple graphics options is so that it is scalable on all kinds of hardware configurations. Crysis launched with graphical settings that the PC crowd couldn't run maxed out for years, taking graphics hardware years of performance improvements to finally catch up. That didn't hurt the game, it worked in its favor. As long as clarity is given to the fact that max graphics setting are designed as future-forward and aren't intended to be used on today's hardware, people will understand.

If you say nothing and the max graphics options provide a simply good looking game, like KCD, and the performance is bad then that is a bit more of an issue. The fact that people with more than capable rigs using even GTX 1080's are struggling with achieving acceptable performance on this game indicates to me that the beta was a vertical slice that was able to run acceptably because it was a small area missing features, and when it came time to render the whole open world with all the systems and such, the performance took an incredible nosedive and they had to pare it back.

But who knows. In the end, it is just disappointing to see that games can have such incredible graphics, but by the time these games get into our hands they end up neutered to simply look good, rather than nearly next-gen when they were initially shown off.

Show all comments (42)
The story is too old to be commented.